Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Gangleri's submissions to the project

User_talk:MacGyverMagic/WikiMagic/Gangleri

[edit] Disagreeing

(Moved from the main page)

I completely disagree with the explanation of the method in the articles, with or without the "Magician's Oath". It is contributing to putting many people (including myself) out of work. As the effects can be bought, it is also negatively affecting the sales of magic effects.

User:Alan Morgan -- 00:57, 19 Jun 2005

Similarly, writing about programming will put programmers out of work and the sale of software will decline since people will just write their own. =p There is a level of skill and presentation involved which is still in the hands of professionals. Look elsewhere for reasons for the industry decline, as it is not found with spoilers. If I read a script, I'll still go to see the movie. This is no different. Besides, such a disagreement is a much larger topic which should probably go to the committee for an official ruling, and certainly not on the article page itself. -- Sy / (talk) 17:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most of the time, programmers do not care if people know how their programs work. The entire point of magic is that people have no idea how something is happening. If people know how an effect is done, it isn't amazing magic anymore, it's just sleight of hand, or a neat trick. I am both a programmer and a magician myself, and there is no relation. --Greeney 05:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has photographed three live performances during the last three days, I must say that it's not the illusion but the illusionist that makes the magic entertaining. Knowing the secret won't spoil a brilliant performance. Speaking of photography, please list article illustration requests. I have friends in the community who may allow me to publish their photos (though as per my own policy, I won't publish spoilers or gaffs).
Does that also imply that if I sing in a karaoke bar I won't sound as good as Tony Bennett or Rachelle Ferrell? I am crushed.
But seriously, those who do not perform themselves will rarely appreciate that behind the smile and the appearance of effortless grace is a mountain of hard work and dedication. It's painful to hear a great song butchered, and it's painful to see a great magic effect butchered. The difference is, once the magic is exposed, the members of the audience will never be able to enjoy it with innocent eyes; some of the magic is forever lost. --KSmrqT 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TFD on {{magic-spoiler}}

The template magic-spoiler has been nominated for deletion.

If you wish to vote or comment on this issue please visit its entry on TFD.

Dragons flight 07:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme card manipulation

Someone, obviously insider, wrote an article about it. Is it considered magic, or not? How should it be classified? Samohyl Jan 11:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This stuff is plainly just a branch of flourishes. Just the fact that the author/s need to refer to flourishes is enough for me. You can do flourishes for many reasons - and some Western vaudeville artists just did card flourishes in the first half of the 20th century. There are all sorta geeky, ossessional sub-categories of ANYTHING. Wiki should not allow folks to self-publicise by cornering off a small piece of something and then describing it as a category all of its own - and then conferring some badge of legitimacy to whoever is associated with the new category. Anyhows, the so-called extreme manipulators are only labelling what is already out there - magicians for hundreds of years have been into this muscular thing of showing off their skills at high speed charlier cuts and passes, how many decks they can use simultaneously, how fast they can close a fan one-handed. We should amalgamate these guys into the flourish section and be done - no naming of the guys [you bet there are no girls!] who stuck a flag on it. Speaking of which the flourish section needs expansion. Selfpublicitysucks 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I just did a google and hilariously found webtalk which completely subverts the 'Extreme' logic. The stub article tries to make a distinction between magicians and extreme manipulators. However, one of the apparent masters of the genre has gone on record as saying he is a magician. This must be a nail in the coffin for those wanting a separate section. Here is the webtalk, highlighting the names cited as Extreme Manipulation masters[1] Selfpublicitysucks 23:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I now don't think it should be classified as magic, even though it came from it. I think there is a precedent in juggling. Juggling is also sometimes used by magicians, but standalone it's definitely not magic. And if a juggler says I am also a magician, does it make juggling magic? I think the best category here for XCM is Category:Circus skills, although it sounds a bit strange. Also, I think XCM is now not so POV (or not at all) as it was when I saw it first created. The guys are definitely famous, so they deserve mention here (for instance I knew about them before from another magician). But maybe there could be Category:Flourishes. Samohyl Jan 07:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Jan and 'Selfpublicitysucks'{?!} - I am partially in agreement with both of you. This so-called XCM is already listed at Wiki under flourish - I hereby propose that XCM is moved into and subsumed by the other category. There is a danger of subcategories to subcategories being created almost entirely it seems to me to feed egos. Also - it is becoming obssessional this planting of flags onto any corner which can be described plausibly as being a section of its own. Taken to its logical extreme we will have BILLIONS of articles in Wiki each a self-invented category with its own coterie of supporters. Wikipedia should NOT be abused like this. As 'Selfpublicitysucks' has done i have used search engines to map the beginnings of the fixation in question - it is blatantly apparent that ALL of the so-called XCM 'stars' have been diligent in erecting mythologies around themselves and their skills. On the other hand there are even MORE artists than credited by XCM who have 'extreme' skills with cards. It is facile, trite and self serving to limit the definition of XCM to those who 'don't do magic'. Ricky Jay, Lennart Green, aladin, Jeff Sheridan have each got supernormal skills with cards which have no practical application (and not utilised by them in their 'magic' performances); I very much doubt any of them would be supportive of the idea of an XCM category. Next we will have a category for people who can draw VERY VERY thin lines with a sable paint brush - and who do not practice 'art' otherwise. I think it is time we removed the XCM listing too as it would set an absurd precedent and become an open invitation to litter Wikipedia with myriad spurious categories. Shazzamm 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I am too not for creation of XCM category, but rather for creation of Flourishes and perhaps (later) Card flourishes categories, where should these moves (those important ones that someone will describe in article) probably go. Maybe there could be list of flourishes, and the current list on flourish should go under card section (because there are other objects too) - I am an inclusionist and wouldn't like to see it deleted (but there could be descriptions, maybe). Samohyl Jan 05:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that XCM is just flourishing. Though I do believe it has a place in magic, an example would be the flipback vanish (You can find a video of it with google easily). Pretty good effect and it can easily be considered as a magic effect. I've created the list of flourishes just by copy and pasting a few lists from google so it's far from complete or legit. I added in the explanation for card spring a long while back and it seems no one has taken the liberty to add more explanations for other flourishes. I'll be adding an explanation for ribbon spread and twin peaks when I get to it but I urge you guys to help expand it. LegendsEnd 16:52, 02 October 2005 (GMT-5)

[edit] vandalism anyone?

I just spotted this at the base of the page on Magic (illusion), above the Categories section - should we delete it and block the perpetrator? as usual it is somebody without an account. here is what it says:

See illusion. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy. 67.165.91.60
Delete it, but don't discount it. Some distinction should be made that "trick" implies less talent, or mischievous deception, rather than something elaborately planned and requiring a greater degree of vision and skill. Sam Freedom 10:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

makes the page suck.thegirlinwhite 23:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New template for marketed/professional items

I have just created a new template for tagging tricks that are currently marketed and/or used by professional magicians. I realize that describing how to do magic tricks is a violation of the Wikipedia principle that Wikipedia is not a manual or "how to", but it still seems appropriate and fun to include some tricks (such as the ones I recently added to the List of magic tricks). However, it might make sense to leave out the methods for some of the tricks that are currently being used by businesses and magicians to make their living. For example, the King levitation is still a fairly new trick and is currently sold by Ellusionist, so I'm sure that they would prefer for the secret not to be exposed.

How does everyone feel about this? If there are no objections within the next week or two, I will start with the King levitation.

Kleg 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Kleg

I don't see the need for it. The current {{Magic-spoiler}} template links to Exposure (magic) and Intellectual rights to magic methods. Both articles explain the situation better than the proposed template. It's not the aim of Wikipedia to tell readers whether or not to expose magic tricks. -- Krash 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The spoiler warning is to protect the reader from information they may not want to read. I was suggesting protection, for some tricks, of the owner, from the public exposure of information that they may not want exposed. The two templates would serve different purposes. Given that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "manual" or "how to", it seems that a case could be made that no magic tricks should be explained, although that's not the case I am making. I'm only suggesting that those which are still being marketed or used by professionals go unexplained. Kleg 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The matter of whether wikipedia should censor this information has been dealt with at great length here and at talk pages such as Talk:Out of This World (card trick). There is an overwhelming consensus amongst wikipedians that this information should remain, and the vandals who have ignored this consensus have been (quite rightly) treated as vandals and their deletions immediately reverted. This template is an attempt to legitimise such vandalism, but won't work. The template has now been nominated for deletion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I'm wondering what kind of notability and relevency we can apply to articles about magic trix – why we're including a specific trick, why it should have its own article, etc. This line of thinking was recently inspired by the new articles added to List of magicians: Twenty One Card Trick, Mentalo, Reading The Cards, Spelling Bee (card trick), The Four Burglars, The Three Aces, Blackstone's Card Trick Without Cards, The Acme of Control, The Circus Card Trick.

These three public domain (unknown origins) tricks:Twenty One Card Trick,Reading The Cards,The Four Burglars, has a certain notability as beeing the three tricks most spread among people who are not magicians. I.e. if someone says he knows one single card-trick, it is a safe bet that it is one of those three. That is the case in both USA and Europe. Don't know about Asia. "Reading the cards" might be the wrong title for that piece (it might not even have a name). The remaining pieces seem to be small variations to public domain material, for beginners books, and I wouldn't call any of it notable, except The Three Aces, but that has more to do with the book it comes from than the piece itself. The following:The Circus Card Trick is credited to Clayton Rawson, but whoever posted it has stripped away everything but the bare bones of Rawson's piece, to the degree that it isn't the same piece anymore, and what is left should really be filed under, as an example of, "Key-card" (I'm quite certain that Rawson himself would be horrified over seing his name in connection to the description here)--TStone 12:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have, unfortunately, not been able to check out any of the cited books in the above articles (I'm dying to do so as soon as I can). But it would seem that the titles of these articles are taken from names of specific tricks found in these books – tricks that are either called by a different name elsewhere and/or are a combination or improvement on another trick. On some, I recognize the technique but I've never heard the trick specifically called that before. I'm not claiming to be an expert in the field and I'm quite sure that there's plenty that I don't know, but it seems that things could get a bit out of hand if every packet trick, trick deck, gimmick, trick-out-of-some-book, and anything else gets its own article.

Wikipedia is not a magic encyclopedia. Some tricks are so widely-known that the argument could be made that they need their own article (Cups and balls, Scotch and Soda, Invisible deck). Other dubious tricks could do without their own article lest each one ends up reading like the description from the back of the packet. And I'm not really sure if a book on how to do magic tricks is a good single source for an article. I think magic articles need to not only explain the what and how but also why. Why is this trick important? Who invented it? et cetera et cetera.

Yes exactly! That is the first reasonable statement ever I've seen here. I'm grateful to hear that. What's the point of having an encyclopedia, if it's randomly decided that one area doesn't need verification and notability, while all other's do? That only casts doubt on the whole place. I mean, first thing I did when I found this place was to check the areas in which I have some expertise.. and just saw myths, thefts, misattributed material, uncredited pieces, false and misleading information... Well, as it is, I don't trust a single thing the wikipedia says in all the fields I don't have expertise. For all I know, it's probably the same unreliable mess there also.. well that is an exaggeration, but not a big one --TStone 12:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "levitation series" is a good example of how bad a situation can become. All of these articles and the exhaustive list found at Levitation could simply be lumped into one Levitation (illusion) article.

I guess what I'm asking is shouldn't there be some guidelines with respect to notability? This, I think, is very true with articles about tricks and magicians and I'm wondering what other people think about this. I will be the first to admit that I'm pretty much the opposite of an inclusionist, but I also know that there's gotta be some middle ground somewhere. -- Krash 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Circus Card Trick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mentalo -- Krash 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on magic? Articles like Bullet catch are what we're looking for. Featured articles would also be great. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I doubt that you will find very many. The people most qualified to write good articles on magic are magicians, and they tend to be driven away from Wikipedia by the lack of respect that their art receives here. Kleg 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Re, Bullet catch Be careful with any information coming from William Poundstone's book, as that is known to cointain his own theories, and not always facts. And a cursory check on copyright-issues might not hurt either, as there's quite a lot of info from rather few books. I've no reason to believe text has been copies, but still... Most articles here are a mess, and many seems to take the idea of proper sourcing as a personal insult --TStone 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your help.--Shanel 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Hiya, I've been creating several articles lately on Magic-related subjects/people:

(etc).

Is there anyplace in particular that you'd like me to list new articles, to help with Project maintenance? Or should I just make sure that they're all tagged with {{magic}}? --Elonka 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mess at List of magicians

This list is a real mess, and seems to be a magnet for any local high-school juggler to come in and add their name as a way of trying to self-promote. The list currently seems to have more redlinks than real articles, and today I noticed that it was missing plenty of "real" magicians, such as Whit Haydn. I've added in a few names, but I'd like to go through the whole thing from top to bottom, removing all red links, and then double-checking the names that are linked, to make sure that they're to real bios, and not just to self-promotional ads. Is this alright with everyone, or are there any redlinked names there that you think should really stay? If so, let's at least make stub articles for them, with a link to at least one bonafide reference that proves notability. --Elonka 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks are our friends if they remind us of worthwhile articles yet to be written. Don't kill them just because they are red. --KSmrqT 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about if I pull the redlinks off of List of Magicians page, but add them to the WikiProject, as "articles to be created"? --Elonka 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's really really unhelpful, frankly. Redlinks are a key part of growing the encyclopedia. If I see a redlink I might think "Oh, I'll fill in that articled." Taking them away, as seems to have happened via the discussion page, denies someone of the opportunity to grow a new article. The list is chronically bad - there's no Bill Malone, Daryl (aka Daryl Martinez aka Daryl Easton), Lubor Fielder, Pat Page, Hans Moretti and many other A-list performers. Please please put the most deserving candidates back in. 82.43.137.103 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redlinks can be helpful within an article, but the list is a list of magicians with articles, not a list of magicians in general. IrishGuy talk 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The list is entitled "List of magicians" not "List of magicians with articles". If List of magic tricks can have redlinks in it (as in fact do the huge majority of other Wiki lists - random examples: List_of_book_titles_taken_from_literature, List_of_open_source_software_packages) then why not List of magicians? That's inconsistent. Davidbod 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Edited to add: My understanding of the criteria for adding redlinks is that they should be worthy of a seperate article. I'm not saying that every magician in the world should be on here, but if they're notable to have an article but someone hasn't written it yet, it should be on here to help grow the encyclopedia. Davidbod 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Card magic needs its own page

I think that card magic redirecting to card manipulation is misleading. Card manipulation is, as it says on the page, about unmagical handling of cards. Card magic is a completely different topic, one which I think should have its own page. Also, I think that flourish should be moved to the card manipulation page, as both are virtually the same thing. Any thoughts? Nsmith 84 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that some distinction can be made between "card magic" and "card manipulation" I think there is a problem in that some practitioners do both and there isn't a sharp divide between the fields. "card magic" often requires "card manipulation" skills even if it also uses gaffed decks or other methods.
I think it might be better to keep the re-direct and develop sub-sections within that entry.
Circusandmagicfan 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Guidelines on use of {{Magicbox}}

What are opinions on how this should be used? For myself, I've been adding it to articles that are about magical techniques, but not to actual biographies. Does this sound like a good practice, or do we want to add it to all magic-related articles, including bios? --Elonka 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the box should be added to all magic-related articles. Although it might seem clumsy to add the box to all biographies I think that if they're going to be regarded as part of this project then it would be helpful to mark them as such.
Circusandmagicfan 12:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Editing {{Magicbox}}

Following on from the above discussion about use of the Magicbox, what are the guidelines for editing the content of the box? For example, I notice it has a list of magic sub-types that consists of "Parlor magic", "Street magic", "Mentalism", and "Coin magic". This is a rather limited selection. Examples of entries that might usefully be added are:

  • "Grand illusion"
  • "Stage magic" (there might be some debate about where this overlaps Grand illusion
  • Escapology
  • Card magic (currently referred to as "Card manipulation")

I'm a newcomer here so I look to those who've worked on this project for a while (although I couldn't see any specific debate on this in the discussion page) Circusandmagicfan 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

In the absence of a response to the above I have applied WP:BOLD
Circusandmagicfan 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] New articles - suggestion for how to write about tricks

I've recently created a couple of new articles on specific illusions and I think they might illustrate a general approach to writing about tricks without getting into the issue of exposure, which generates a lot of controversy. What I've done is concentrate on a description of the illusion and its origins and history. I think this gives the possibility of a substantial and worthwhile entry while temporarily avoiding the exposure issue. The articles in question are

I would really appreciate any general feedback and comments on these because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning some of the rules. I am not saying we should back down on the publication of methods. I am actually among those who dispute the lines on "exposure" and "rights" that are often put about by the magic "establishment". I do, however, believe there might be better ways to handle the publication of methods in Wikipedia than those used so far. Circusandmagicfan 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Exposure

Exposure Should be limited to the most basic effects, for instance, an Article on the Balducci Levitation would say something like, Method: This Magical effect is an Example of a Levitation, to see methods for accomplishing Levitations, please go to {Levitation(Illusion)}.

Come to think of it, why not have a template for every magical effect, so that they type of effect could just be typed and the template would fill in the template for you

Also, on the pages where a magical effect is revealed(for instance levitation) I think the spoiler should be improved. It should say something like:

A Magical Effect Follows, This means that the Magicians Oath Applies. The Magicians Oath is :"(The oath goes here)" If you would like to follow the oath, or do not want to know the secret to this effect, please skip the following section.

..

Personally I'd love to see more information on magic in the 'pedia. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to add it, being as I am somewhat ignorant of the field. My only problem is with this proposal:

"As little exposure as possible will be performed"

What a horrible idea! Why would you try to limit the amount of useful information in an article?—Rory ☺ 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

(response posted on user's user page)

I'm not sure whether I responded, so I will do it now. (Sorry, if I did so previously) As you might have noticed, since I started the project, I'm more knowledgeable on magic. The problem with exposure is that lots of tricks are copyrighted and you're unlikely to get permission from magicians to include those effects (tricks) in Wikipedia. We need to keep in check with guidelines whatever we do. Also, the current stuff we have on exposure adss a definite negative connotation to magic, and I want that cleared first. I'm not against exposure in principle, but we should be really careful with our decision in that respect. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think these pages should become a giant repository for exposure, for one thing that would just be inviting magicians to vandalize the pages to remove it. I think a great goal would be as informative as possible, and if the reader wants to take thing to the next step then these pages should also be able to guide them where to go for more --BathTub 17:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And indeed such a vandalism happened today (07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)) by 69.231.38.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The thing is, it's not really vandalism since it's probably just someone trying to preserve his livelihood. I don't even know whether to revert his blanking or not. Collabi 07:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I am beginner in magic, i think exposure is not a big problem, because there are so many effects, and with a good effect and presentation it's impossible to immediately realize what method was used, unless you think about magic 24/7, as most people don't. That of course doesn't mean you should tell people how you did that afterwards. But I consider openness beneficial, because it allows many people to improve upon it. Anyway, as a compromise, I would prefer, if there has to be an exposure, to:

  1. Move it to wikibooks to some more or less complete book about magic tricks (people will bother less to read an entire book to find a method for single effect).
  2. Write it so that someone can eventually learn the trick (that's actually only case when exposure really makes sense).

Samohyl Jan 11:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

See new proposals further down on Methods/Exposure - New proposals
Circusandmagicfan 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Proposal re. magic methods

See the proposal: Policy for magic methods --TStone 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above was marked as "inactive" some time ago.
See new proposals further down on Methods/Exposure - New proposals
Circusandmagicfan 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


[edit] Something for all

Israel Regardie wrote in the introduction to the voluminous Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic that any aspiring magician should consolidate his work by submitting to some form of Reichian psychotherapy. The basis if this is outlined in an article which I have put up, Sex economy (essay), which details an essay written by Ola Raknes, Norwegian vegetotherapist and author of Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy. This is an acute introduction to the theory of sex economy which all Reichian, and indeed neo-Reichian, therapies are based on. This should be of great interest to many people that are preoccupied with more than the mere trappings of magicianship. However, this article that I have put up may not remain a Wikipedia article for long, since it has already been proposed informally for deletion. Maybe an interest taken by some of the folks frequenting this forum could be significant in saving this article for Wikipedia. __meco 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I can see that article has no relevance to this project. Circusandmagicfan 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I agree, however what I assert is that it deals with a subject which by an aothoritative figure (Regardie) has been posited as instrumental to the success of anyone wanting to practice magick (and surely magic in a more general term as well), a pre-requisite if you will. Therefore I boldly take the liberty of informing you all of this. There should be no grounds for any action being taken by this project per se. __meco 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Noticing now that this project exclusively appears to be absorbed in so-called "sleight-of-hand magic" and not the magic of magicians (esoteric practice), I realize that I probably have indeed misjudged my audience. __meco 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methods/Exposure - New proposals

Discussion also posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The issue of publishing magic methods seems to be a recurrent source of controversy but the various attempts to achieve a clear policy seem to keep fizzling out. Having recently begun writing articles in the hope of injecting some new life into the Magic WikiProject I would hate for the whole thing to become diverted into (and bogged down by) another round of edit wars.

Because there are people in the magic community who hold vehement views on what they call "exposure", which they consider immoral, there is clearly a risk of any article that contains details of methods being targeted by sustained campaigns. I disagree with these people and I do not think Wikipedia should be bullied into following the selective norms of a specialist community. However I also think it is important to try to understand the criticisms that are being made of Wikipedia and to try to respond in a rational way rather than just saying "sod these people we're just going to ignore them". We also need to be practical. If we simply carry on as things are then every so often the Magic project will get bogged down in fighting vandalism, with the result that effort will be diverted away from the more important business of expanding and improving the articles.

I therefore propose the following:

[edit] Strict application of WP:Attribution

Because the publication of magic methods is controversial it is especially important that any attempt to do so should adhere strictly to the established policies and guidelines that are Wikipedia's foundation. In particular I think WP:Attribution is significant. If information about a method is quoted from another freely available source then it becomes more difficult for magicians to argue that Wikipedia is the point at which exposure is occurring. I would add here that some articles contain methods that are unsourced and seem speculative and inaccurate, which undermines the quality of the Magic Project generally and contravenes WP:NOR

If a method is added to an article but no reference is provided we should apply the section of WP:Attribution that says: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Normally I would add an "unreferenced" tag and leave the text for a while to see if someone could add a source, however because this is a controversial issue I think the material should be kept out of the article until it can be properly referenced.

[edit] Intellectual property law

Because the concept of intellectual property often forms part of arguments about exposure of methods and because magicians have occasionally resorted to the courts in an attempt to suppress publication of methods it is important that attention is paid to relevant areas of law. The Wikipedia policy on Copyright problems deals with part of this but there might also be additional issues to do with information that is covered by laws on confidentiality (eg. this might be because it is covered by a Non-disclosure agreement but could also be because, in some jurisdictions such as the UK, there are laws that automatically give certain information a confidential quality). The article on Intellectual rights to magic methods is good but is not yet comprehensive - in particular it should be noted that, even though international treaties have resulted in a certain amount of commonality, intellectual property law does vary from one country to another - the current entry has an American focus.

In any case I am not trying to pre-empt proper legal advice, which Wikipedia already has provisions for. I certainly don't want this to be taken as an argument in favour of prior restraint. It is merely intended as cautionary advice. What I suggest is that, before adding material concerning methods, contributors should take reasonable steps to confirm the material is not covered by copyright or confidentiality. Obviously there is a debate to be had about what constitutes "reasonable steps", but to some extent the solution again resides with application of WP:Attribution.

Circusandmagicfan 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Re: Legal position on publication of methods. Can anyone get hold of the wording of any judgement or ruling in the case LA Superior Court BC190153, Robert J. Gurtler aka Andre Kole v. Nash Entertainment, Bruce Nash, Fox Broadcasting Co. This apparently dealt with publication on television of a method to an illusion and might be a firm source for the legal position. I can find a listing for it in the Entertainment Law Digest but I have no access to the content. Circusandmagicfan 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
See Trade secret for a good non-technical discussion. A key portion in this context is " a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered." DGG 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Another key passage appears to be: ...With sufficient effort or through illegal acts (such as break and enter), competitors can usually obtain trade secrets. However, so long as the owner of the trade secret can prove that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the information confidential, the information remains a trade secret and generally remains legally protected as such.
Circusandmagicfan 09:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
  • While exposure can generally attributed to a source, the problem is that those sources are violating intellectual property law by sharing material that isn't theirs. It's technically not copyright violation, but that doesn't make it acceptable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're broadly in the same territory. I'm uncomfortable with wholesale posting of methods for the sake of it
My argument is twofold. First that some of the methods that have been added to articles are actually inaccurate - which is a quality issue. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about addressing that sort of thing by requiring properly cited references. Second, there's more to "intellectual property" than just copyright - breach of confidence and breach of contract torts being two potential pitfalls.
On the other hand one has to be careful when talking about people publishing knowledge that isn't "theirs". The posting above seems to be saying in one sentence that something is illegal and in the following sentence that it's not illegal. Something is either legal or it's not.
I think it's dangerous to start trying to assign some sort of moral rights that apply only to magic. The law is society's method of codifying morality. We may not always like it but it's kind of the bottom line hammered out by society. If the law says no one "owns" or has "rights" to a piece of knowledge then there's no reason why it shouldn't be published. Magicians sometimes overstep the mark in claiming or assigning "rights". Just because it is commonly thought amongst magicians that a particular method is associated with a particular performer or publisher does not mean that person necessarily holds legal rights like those conferred by a patent. Quite apart from the limitations of copyright, it is perfectly possible there might be what is sometimes referred to as "prior art". Many magic methods are variations or rediscoveries of tricks that date back a long way. Just because someone discovers or reinvents one of those ideas and makes it part of their act or publishes a book on it doesn't mean they own the underlying concept. They might have copyright over the particular act or form of words they use and they might be able to protect their knowledge as a trade secret by taking reasonable steps to keep it confidential, but magicians are are not above the law and do not have extra rights that the rest of humanity doesn't have. Again, citing of sources should help to ensure Wikipedia remains on firm ground.
Circusandmagicfan 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
In my opinion, the best way to proceed on this, is to propose a guideline page either directly on the WikiProject page or perhaps as a subpage of the Magic WikiProject, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/Guidelines. On that page, include not just information about intellectual property, but all of the thises and thatses that go into formatting a magic article. Which templates to use, which categories we recommend, what format to use for an article about a trick, etc. And also include a paragraph similar to what you've got above, about how secrets should not be released unless they can be firmly cited to an outside source, and even then should be prefaced with {{magic-spoiler}}. Once the guideline page is written, we provide a link to it here, and if there's consensus to "make it so," then there's something easy to refer to if any questions come up on other articles. For an example, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. --Elonka 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Another good "example" wikiproject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. They've got elaborate instructions there on improving and standardizing articles. My own current pet project (non-magic at the moment) is an article on the Knights Templar, which I've put though the MilHist Peer Review, and is now at official Good Article status. My ultimate goal is to get it to Featured Article status, and then to Wikipedia's mainpage for a day of glory in October of this year. One thing that might help motivation here at the Magic WikiProject, is to identify which magic-related articles (if any) have achieved Good or Featured status, and listing them on the page. And if we don't have one at that level yet, then we should definitely pick a subject that's well-documented (such as Harry Houdini perhaps), and push it through to GA status. It's a good team-builder, a great way to educate folks on the most exacting of Wikipedia standards, and will definitely be a source of pride. It's a real rush to see an article that you've worked on, show up on Wikipedia's mainpage as "Today's Featured Article." :) --Elonka 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The current policy on exposure seems to turn off most people who know enough about magic to create well written and well referenced articles, making it difficult for a magic page to get to Good Article status. Kleg 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm continuing this thread in a new section below (see Re-booting the project). Circusandmagicfan 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Ditching magic collaboration of the week

I propose we delete this feature of the project. As far as I can tell from its page this feature has been inactive since at least 2005. The level of activity on the project as a whole is currently pretty low. Most of the editing seems to be a case of occasional and infrequent visits by people who take an interest in specific articles. There appear to be only a very small number of editors taking an interest in the project as a whole. Even if the full efforts of all these people could be focused for a week it would not be sufficient to make a huge amount of progress. I don't mean to belittle anyone's efforts (because this "little and occasional" approach is one of the things Wikipedia harnesses to useful effect). What I am saying is that with project activity at its current level and with effective limits on the frequency and duration of editing activity that can be expected from anyone, a week amounts to rather a short length of time. Even if we changed to "Collaboration of the month" it might still be too short a timeframe to see big transformations.

As an alternative we should have a seies of project strands that are given varying priority levels based on need for content or improvement. Initially at least these could be based around the elements in the "Magicbox" template. For example:

  • Magicians' biographies
  • History of magic
  • Stage illusions
  • Card magic
  • Mentalism
  • Street magic
  • Escapology

...and so on.

I will leave this for a couple of weeks to see if anyone has comments or objections and if so to see if a consensus can be achieved. Beyond that I will feel free to apply WP:BOLD

Circusandmagicfan 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

  • I already posted to Circusandmagicfan's talk page, but I think it's a good idea to mark it inactive instead of going through deletion. It makes revival a lot easier should the need ever arise. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough - I agree we should keep the template "in reserve"
Circusandmagicfan 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
"Collaboration of the week" is definitely not effective. However, it might be worth renaming it as "current collaboration," putting a date on it, and adding a note saying that it's okay to changing the "current collaboration" to some other article if it appears to have had no new activity for a certain period of time (maybe a week?). --Elonka 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think "current collaboration" is a good suggestion. I'm not sure about the time span though - a week is definitely too short. Maybe a month? Circusandmagicfan 08:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I'm continuing this thread in a new section below (see Re-booting the project). Circusandmagicfan 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] National categories for professional magicians

I've noticed an anonymous user removing the category "British magician" from a lot of bios and replacing it with "English magician". Whilst I don't have a problem with people being described as English if that is indeed an identifier they use, I am arguing that we should retain the "British" category. Same goes for british magicians who use the identifiers Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. There are several reasons

  1. "British" is a useful category for search purposes, especially for people, such as those from outside the UK, who might only know of a performer as British rather than English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.
  2. If you are English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish your formal nationality is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is usually shortened to British.
  3. The main national magic organisations, the best known being The Magic Circle, tend to span all of the UK rather than being exclusive to one of its parts. To quote the Wikipedia article: "The Magic Circle is a British organisation dedicated to magic..."
  4. Some people prefer to describe themselves as British rather than English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Other people might lay claim to multiple nationalities - eg. someone of Scottish parentage born and raised in England might consider themselves both Scottish and English, and quite possibly British, Scottish and English. In all of these cases it is helpful for us to retain the British classification.
  5. Following on from the above point, there is a risk that some people have been or might be wrongly classified on the basis of data about their birth location. eg. It is possible that some subjects have been classified as English because they were born in England when, in fact, they might consider themselves Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. "British" is a more reliable and more easily verified classification.

The only significant exception I can think of is that some people from Northern Ireland might consider themselves Irish and object to being classified as British. I don't have any problem with classifying them that way if there's a citable source that verifies their stated position.

I'd be interested to hear other views on the British/English thing.

Also, does anyone know about similar issues with other countries. eg. Puerto Rico/US or Canada/Quebec or Greenland/Denmark.

Circusandmagicfan 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I would say to just pick one category, be it British or English, rather than using both. The general rules on categories are to pick the category for which someone is best known, so look at what articles or books are saying. Do they call him an "English magician" or a "British magician"? It is also generally to be avoided to choose multiple categories that are "related" to each other. For example, "Category:English magicians" is a subcategory of "Category:British magicians". See Wikipedia:Categorization for more info. --Elonka 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. The problem is that, as I outlined, it is not straightforward to determine whether someone should be classified as English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish. Published sources can be contradictory (sometimes descriptions depend upon the context in which an article is written). In many cases there might be no specific published statement about nationality. It seems the classification in some articles has been done on the basis of place of birth, but, as I mentioned, that is not a completely reliable determinant when it comes to making someone English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish. It is at least a little more reliable as an indicator that someone should be classified as British (especially when combined with other data). Given all these factors, my view is that British is preferable as a category. If needs be we should delete the sub-categories "English magicians", "Northern Irish magicians" and "Scottish magicians". I do not see that they are very useful. There might be some grounds for retaining the "Scottish magicians" category as there are a few people (eg. Jerry Sadowitz) who are clearly known as and billed as Scots. The Northern Ireland category is much more problematic (it could be argued that it shouldn't be a sub-category of "British magicians" because some Northern Irish people identify as specifically Irish and not British). In any case, at the moment, there is only one Northern Irish magician listed- and he is actually much better known as an American! Finally, magicians who are categorised as English are very unlikely to object to being categorised as British (although I don't want this to become a politics forum it is worth noting that even extreme nationalists tend to call themselves British nationalists rather than English nationalists).
I will re-classify all English magicians as British for the time being on the basis that it is the safest default option which avoids an article being in both a main and sub-categories. If someone can make a solid case for classifying a magician as English then that can be argued out and we can re-classify if neccessary.
Circusandmagicfan 08:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

So that you can push your own agenda? Why are you taking it upon yourself to do this? There is no consensus for you to act upon this. It is complete unacceptable to remove the English Magicians category, whilst leaving the Scottish Magicians category. You should not have gone ahead with depopulating that category without a consensus. No one is saying to get rid of the British Magicians category, the others are subcategories. 172.188.40.58 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason for the English sub-category (see above arguments). As for consensus, it is difficult to determine what qualifies as consensus when activity/involvelement is very low. If one posts proposals and no one posts responses what is to be inferred? If the lack of responses is because few or no users are giving any attention to the pages or project in question it becomes nonsensical to expect consensus to be achieved in the form of a mass of endorsing posts. This project has seen very little activity for the last year or so - especially in terms of input on the project talk page (even posting on Wikipedia's announcements areas has produced no new input to the debate about re-booting the project). There is a need for the project to be tidied up and given some new direction if it is not to be moribund. In these circumstance it seems reasonable to apply WP:BOLD, which is what I have done.
I do not have any agenda other than improving the Magic wikiproject and I do not seek to impose my ideas regardless of other views. If there is reasoned argument for use of the "English magicians" category and if that outweighs the arguments I have set out then I'm happy for that sub-category to be used.
I would prefer to get rid of the Scottish and Northern Irish sub-categories also. I have not removed the Scottish category because, as I indicated, I am aware of potential arguments for its retention. However the option to lose those categories still remains and we should consider implementing it unless there are objections. (Also, I have not deleted the "English magicians" category; it still exists, it's just not currently in use. What I have done is to go through the "English" magic biographies and check out the references and re-categorise to British on the basis of what I found.)
Having had my actions queried, I have some counter queries.
  1. A study of the histories of some of the magic biographies seems to show that a person or people have been editing to alter biographies that described subjects as British to instead show them as English. This is not always easy to spot because edit summaries are lacking. It seems to have been done even where the only evidence of Englishness is birth location, which, as I've said before, is not conclusive. Where is the justification or consensus for this action? (At least I pointed out what I was doing by giving edit summaries and posting here with detailed justification.)
  2. What is the point of the "English magician" category? By this I mean, how does it add useful information or aid in searching or use of Wikipedia? (I've argued that "British magician" is a better categorisation because it is less prone to error. I also argue that there is little point in distinguishing between English and British magicians because English people tend to regard themselves as British. Sub-divisions for Scots, Welsh and Irish have a little more foundation in as much as some people who formally have UK nationality prefer to be described in that way because they have nationalist feelings.)
  3. Why does the person who made the previous post (and presumably also the posts on my talk page and various reverts to articles) use an anonymous IP address? If you have some commitment or involvement in relation to this issue why do you not sign up with a user name so that we can at least see it is the same person all the time and see your edit history?
Circusandmagicfan 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I notice someone with a similar anonymous IP as before has waded back in since my last post and repeated some edits to classify people as English without any response to any of the arguments here. Whoever it was seems to be aware of the posts here because they appear to have posted above, however they have not addressed any of my arguments. If this anonymous person (who seems to me to be a vandal) repeats their edits again they would, by my reckoning, be in danger of breaking the three revert rule. However, This person seems set on a straight tit-for-tat edit war but, as an anonymous IP, they seem to be trying to avoid the rules.
Circusandmagicfan 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Following further investigation I believe someone using anon IPs is behaving in a way that is possibly a subtle form of vandalism and/or trolling and possibly also trying to insert a POV (maybe for political reasons?). All the IP addresses involved begin 172 and are traceable to AOL.
As far as I can tell the latest bout of activity began on or around 15 April when the anonymous user went into at least one article and replaced existing consensus descriptions and catgorisations with "English" (without edit summary or other explanation). This then led to the series of events in the previous posts (above).
I have also found that a user with a similar AOL IP vandalised at least one magic biography in January this year. Obviously this isn't conclusive evidence that it was the same person who inserted the "English" POV, because AOL is a big ISP with a lot of users. But it does illustrate why anon users who want to engage in tit-for-tat reverts should sign up and get a full ID - ie. so we can see their edit history and get some assurance that they are constructive editors and not habitual trolls or vandals.
Circusandmagicfan 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I want to get this right and I'm trying to do it properly by the book. I have put in a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to merge British magicians and its sub-categories into a single category. Circusandmagicfan 13:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Re-booting the project

Following Elonka's suggestion I'm drafting a proper set of guidelines for the project. Also, further to other discussion about the structure of the project, it seems the most useful thing to do is to incorporate the guidelines into a re-vamped project page. Having looked around at articles and categories it's apparent that a bit of work needs to be done on sorting out categories, as these have a significant impact on the structure of the project. At the moment there are some anomalies and inconsistencies - I aim to work on sorting these out and I will incorporate that strand of work into a section of the new project page dealing with structure. If anyone has comments or thoughts on how the category structure should work please post here a.s.a.p. My intention is to put up a draft version of the new page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/draft magic project page and if there are no major objections I will then swap it into the existing project page. I hope to have something ready within the next week to ten days.

Circusandmagicfan 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I have now completed the draft for the new project page and moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/draft magic project page for consultation. I have tried to retain as much of the essence of the old page as possible while adding elements that reflect recent discussion here. I have then tried to build that into a better structure drawing on the example of WikiProject Military history. So what do you think?
Circusandmagicfan 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
The Draft has been up for almost a month with little response. The original project founder has looked at it and made a minor alteration but that is about all in terms of actions or posts. Having left messages for the listed project members who remain active Wikipedians and having posted at the Village Pump I feel I've made reasonable efforts to notify anyone with an interest. Given the above I will leave it until May 3 and if there have been no specific posts in opposition I will assume consensus to replace the existing project page with the draft.Circusandmagicfan 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
New project page is now in place as per above. I have moved the old page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/old project page archived as an archive. If this is inappropriate I assume it can just be deleted.
Circusandmagicfan 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Request for comment

Additional opinions as to a magician's notability are requested at Talk:Tom Stone (magician). --Elonka 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I just created this userbox that I thought some of you might like. If anyone wants I will also create a userbox for this Wikiproject. This userbox will also put you in the new category, Wikipedians interested in magic. This userbox is{{User:Deflagro/Userboxes/Magic}}Deflagro 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is a magician

[edit] Magic spoiler template

Seems like the template has stopped working. I know there was some discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia about abolishing or severely curtailing use of spoilers but I wasn't aware of anything being deleted. Does anyone know what's happened? Circusandmagicfan 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Yes. See long discussion in archives at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler. Samohyl Jan 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Card trick

How is it done please? She lays out piles of cards looking at the top card in each and then counting. an ace will lead to her adding 13 cards, a 2 will cause her to add 12 etc. She then instructs me to remove all piles except 3. Then to reveal the top card of any two piles. Say I reveal 2 and 3. she then merges the discarded cards and counts them (there are 16). She then tells me the remaining hidden top card is an ace. How does she know this? - Pharrar 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid repetition, here is the answer I gave this new user (not yet greeted!) on the mathematics reference desk:
Sorry, can't help. There are many ways of performing a magic trick to produce essentially the same effect. A magician watching the performance may notice details that suggest the method, but non-magicians tend to give grossly inadequate descriptions. That's no accident; many a trick depends on viewers overlooking subtle details. Beyond that, those who know the most about magic are sometimes willing to teach those who want to learn magic for the purpose of performing, but find it counterproductive (and bad for business) to satisfy idle curiosity.
You can find many, many books written about card magic, either in local magic shops, online shops, your public library, or at a local magic club. Wikipedia has a magic project with its own talk page; you might try asking there. It is quite possible the trick you saw appears in Karl Fulves' Self-Working Card Tricks or another of his books. These books are very inexpensive to buy (Amazon even gives you a free peek), and his tricks typically use no special apparatus or difficult sleight of hand. --KSmrqT 07:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the first magic question I can recall seeing there. I am open to suggestions for more appropriate responses to give in such circumstances, should they arise again. --KSmrqT 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flourish and Card Manipulation

There needs to be some clean up with these two terms.

A card flourish is something flashy, and sort of show-off like, but not exactly magical. A flourish may, sometimes, be used during a trick, but has no magical effect itself. Some good examples of a flourish; One Handed Shuffle, Multiple packet cuts (What The Hell Happened Sybil? Hollywood Speedtrap, or anthing by Brian Tudor), Fans, Card Flinging, or any variety of One Handed Cut.

A manipulation should be considered magic. In fact, that should be its own section of magic: Manipulation. Just look at Jeff McBride, Peter Marvey, Topaz, and a whole host of others. Manipulation doesn't just deal with cards (hence the need for its own section), it can be with Doves (or any other type of bird), Cards, Fire, Billiard Balls, Straws, Bells, or anything really.

We need to decide how to define these two terms cause I'm getting tired of seeing "Extreme Card Manipulation." Its either a Flourish or a Manipulation, simple as that.N8pilot16 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about Portal:Illusion ?

Ok, so we are included on Portal:Drama which is really a link to Portal:Arts, however... There's portals for all kinds of important vast topics, such as Portal:Psychology or Portal:Mathematics. Then, there's portals for things that seem to have a more limited scope, like Portal:24 (the TV show), or Portal:Star Wars.

I think, we might have a winner with Illusion. It's more vast than a TV show, and maybe lesser in scope than say Mathematics.

Is anyone else interested in trying to start an Illusion portal? I'm going to be reading up on the guidelines for starting a portal and am curious if anyone else is interested in starting an Illusion portal article. *thumbs up*
--Protocoldroid (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple links from my quick look-up for those interested:

--Protocoldroid (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removing of methods

As per the guidelines on the article, I have been working my way through the listed magic tricks removing the method, and adding a message on the talk page. Still loads to do - anyone want to give me a hand? I think the edit summary and message I've been using is nicely concise - you can see an example on Talk:Asrah levitation and with this edit summary here. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Method to be removed on:

Non-notable?

  • Magic Dude Bone (Not that I don't think this article is -hilarious-, haha)


(Please add to or move entries to this list when methods are removed)

--Protocoldroid (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the method - what next?

I've started going around removing the unsourced methods from the effects, and dropping a note like this on the talk page. Following on from my actions User:TenOfAllTrades has put an additional note, including the magical method, along with encouragement to go and seek out a verifiable source.

I have my reservations about putting the secret in the talk area for a few reasons:

  1. Natural bias - I am a semi-pro magician, and do not believe that Wikipedia should be exposing secrets, and posting unsourced secrets in the talk page is almost as bad (not quite as bad - Google doesn't pick it up) as having it in the article.
  2. I am worried that magicians may visit and start deleting text in the talk page. This is wrong, as this can be construed as vandalism, where as it may be trying to remove a method protected by copyright. Yes, blocks can be issued, but this will invariably lead to bad feeling, and will put off someone who might have otherwise contributed greatly to the project.

One possible compromise is this note I left here. Anyway, what do you all think? StephenBuxton (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To the first point, I have some sympathy. Nevertheless, we must all acknowledge that when we come to Wikipedia we must be encyclopedia editors first, and don our other hats second. (As a scientist, I assure you that there are bits of Wikipedia that have me pulling my rapidly-thinning hair.) Having the method on the article talk page makes it much easier for editors to locate sources—it gives some idea of what to look for. It also allows editors the opportunity to review, correct, and update the content, and to discuss alternate drafts of the text, even before it is restored to the main article body—something not possible if the content is only present as a historical diff link. It is a fairly standard and widely-accepted practice on Wikipedia that a courteous editor will move unsourced content to a talk page pending a search for sources. The exceptions to this practice are generally narrow—we do discard material that is defamatory, material likely to be a copyright violation (see below), and ranting or soapboxing.
Except under very rare (buggy) conditions, Google and other major search engines do not index Wikipedia article talk pages; the average reader of Wikipedia is unlikely in the extreme to come across a talk page through a typical internet search or by following links from external sites. Shuffled off to the talk page, the material is already about as 'hidden' as it can get while still being on the internet.
I should also note that the methods in question fall into two rough categories.
  1. Methods that are essentially correct. In order to give appropriate credit and to verify their correctness, these methods should not be restored to articles until sourced, but they are legitimate Wikipedia article content once sourced—even according to this WikiProject's guidelines. While inclusion of these methods may rankle some, each editor must decide for him or herself if he can make peace with the already-established consensus of the Wikipedia community.
  2. Methods that are badly flawed or completely incorrect. There's no need to worry about the secrecy of these methods. Either they don't work and they thereby don't give anything away, or they represent novel inventions by Wikipedia editors, in which case those inventors are free to do as they please with their creations—including give them away. (While such methods don't belong in articles, there's no significant harm to the magic community to having them on the talk page. The material on the talk page is clearly marked as unsourced and potentially inaccurate.)
I addressed the copyright issue in my previous comments to Stephen, but here it goes again. I fully support removing material from Wikipedia that violates someone else's copyright. I find the notion of lifting another writer's words without attribution reprehensible. As an administrator on Wikipedia, I treat such violations harshly.
However, we do not preemptively remove material as a possible copyright violation in the absence of any credible claim to that effect. I encouraged Stephen – and I encourage any other editor, too – to remove any copyrighted material for which a source can be linked to or cited. (In other words, a statement to the effect that "This material was copied essentially verbatim from page 212 of Bob's Big Book of Magic" or "This material was taken directly from www.bobsmagic.com/the_old_copying_trick.") I also indicated that material added by editors with a demonstrated history of copyright violations could be removed as a precautionary measure.
Finally, issues turning on copyright questions can be referred to an appropriate venue for broader consideration. Wikipedia:Copyright problems (shortcut WP:CP) provides instructions to both editors and copyright holders on appropriate ways to deal with possible infringements. Mature and reasonable individuals need not engage in edit warring, nor will they be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that without references, only magicians know which methods are essentially correct and which ones are badly flawed, and right now we have very few magicians contributing to Wikipedia. Kleg (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As a magician first and Wikieditor second (sorry, I've tried to think differently, but that's the reality) I find myself retreating more and more from the arguments. Surely someone could go searching through the history pages if they're really after the methods. Most of them are there. Then they'd have to decide for themselves whether or not the method(s) posted (and unposted) are correct or not. Just as they would when reading them on either the main page or the discussion page. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, by its very nature, unreliable. To make matters worse, there are many differing versions of effects out there, with as many differing methods. To state categorically that 'this is how something is done' you're better of saying something along the lines of 'this is how my Uncle Bob does it'. Both the effect AND the method need to be sourced for accuracy. My ire starts rising when I see more space devoted to the 'how it's done' than the history and names involved in an effect's development, which points to an immature foundation for including the article in the first place. I am in favour of oblique referencing, pointing people in the right direction to find things out for themselves in the real world, which maintains a basic respect for the fraternity which, in turn, is likely to encourage participation. Many magicians are avid historians and would be valuable assets to the development of this encyclopedia if only they could contribute without violating their vows. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the history of magic is fascinating and it is important that it is reflected in articles. Even those who are obsessed with methods should take an interest in the history and the people involved. It is ridiculous to assume there is always a single un-varying method behind a particular effect. Methods often evolve over time - different magicians successively improve upon an idea, and sometimes a technique from one area of magic is applied to another to create a new effect. Also, as has been stated, we must be wiki editors first and foremost, which means trying to improve the factual quality of articles - which in turn means paying attention to sourcing and references. I therefore support the approach of quoting a source for a method and stating in the article something along the lines of "this is how Magician X says he does it..."
With regard to the points about copyright, copyright is generally not a block on publication of magic methods. There is no copyright in an idea, there is only copyright in the creative form in which it is expressed. In the case of text that might contravene copyright surely the answer is to re-write the text into an original set of words. Similarly with diagrams, if a copyrighted diagram is found then the answer is to produce an original diagram that shows the same information. I believe the law permits quoting of small parts of copyrighted works for the purposes of review and legitimate research. Presumably that also covers some of the situations people were referring to.
Like Kosmoshiva I have begun to tire of the arguments. I drafted the current project guideline on methods to try to curtail the frequent edit wars and squabbling which were threatening to consume the Magic wikiproject and drive knowledgeable contributors away. It seems to me that since the guideline was established the situation has been a little more peaceful (although I have much less time to edit these days so I might be oblivious to arguments on particular articles). I am encouraged by recent posts here, which seem to indicate a more rational and balanced approach is prevailing. I'd like to record my thanks to those who now seem to be picking up the torch. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I am not questioning the guidelines you prepared for how to deal with unsourced methods in the article mainspace. They are very clear, represent the policies on verifiability and original research, and have also found a good compromise position on exposing/concealing magical secrets on Wikipedia (have you ever throught of getting a job in the diplomatic corp?). What I am after is to get an agreement as to whether or not to post the secret that was removed in the talk space. I have my own views on that, and this is not in agreement with other editors. I will go along with the consensus opinion, whatever is agreed. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My vote is don't keep them. Kleg (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really been a huge amount of comment here, not enough to record concensus. The few of us that have commented are rather biased, being magicians as well as Wikipedians. I'm going to post a comment at the Water Pump and ask if someone can pop over and give their thoughts. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think that the method needs to be inluded. In fact, I'd feel better if it's not. If someone wants to learn magic they can go out and buy the $30 book or the $45 video and learn just like everybody else. my two cents.
N8pilot16 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly reasonable to include methods where the information is freely available and supported by cited sources. The argument that people should have to buy books is one I've heard many times before and it still seems deeply flawed. Why should a few book publishers have a profitable little monopoly or cartel? It's one thing for people to defend copyrights which they own (that's fair enough) but there are no good grounds for saying only a few people in the magic industry have a right to publish information on magic methods that is not subject to copyright or other legally legitimate restrictions. There are a lot of illusions where the methods are effectively "public domain" because they have been around so long that no one owns them. I believe the ethos and policy of Wikipedia is in favour of publishing this sort of material where it has relevance or notability.
I do recognise that publication of methods is controversial in some quarters. Furthermore I oppose the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for people who are only obsessed with exposure and have no interest in Wiki's aims and philosophy. I'm thinking here of those who add material that has no cited sources and is often of dubious accuracy. These generally contravene NPOV.
For these reasons we need a clear and carefully justified policy on how methods should be dealt with in articles. I agree with StephenBuxton that the relatively small number of contributors here makes for a potentially biased position. Trying to seek input from experience editors elsewhere on Wiki seems like a good move.
17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I suggets we leave it a few more days and see if anyone else comes across from the Village Pump and comments. If not, I'll see about putting a request at WP:RFC.
Just a reminder though that this debate is not about secrets in the article space; it is about the removed unsourced secrets being placed in the Talk Space. Also, could I please ask that you justify your stance? Which ever route we go down is going to be reached from a consencus, but hundreds (tens?) of votes of remove or post is not really going to help. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As no concensus has been reached, I have raised an RFC. StephenBuxton (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)